¶ 2Leave a comment on paragraph 23Forty attendees from each of the four IGF stakeholder communities – Government, the private sector, civil society and the technical community – as well as UNDESA/IGF Secretariat staff, were present at the retreat. The resulting proceedings record of the discussion that took place is published and available for comment on the IGF’s website.

¶ 3Leave a comment on paragraph 30Many of the ideas and suggestions that emerged from the retreat have been compiled in the following document and are included as an annex to these proceedings.The compilation is structured and ordered following the agenda of the retreat and is published here for ease of reference and to facilitate public consultation.

Participants discussed the creation and development of the IGF since it was established by the UN Secretary-General, as requested in the Tunis Agenda, in 2006. It was said by many that the Internet has evolved rapidly in the ten years since WSIS. Internet governance has also evolved, in line with changing technology and with new opportunities, problems and challenges arising from the Internet’s increasing scale and scope. The IGF has responded to this evolution of the Internet and Internet governance, growing in confidence and capability from uncertain beginnings in 2006 to the point at which the extension of its mandate for a further ten years was readily agreed by the UN General Assembly in 2015.

Different views were expressed concerning the IGF’s impact on the evolution and use of the Internet. It was not generally felt that the IGF had contributed significantly to the technical evolution of the Internet (and some expressed the view that it was not appropriate for it to do so), but it was felt that the IGF has impacted issues concerning access and usage and on the ways in which discussions take place in the ICT sector and beyond. At the same time many felt that the evolution and use of the Internet has impacted equally on the development of the IGF.

A number of participants identified the influence of the IGF’s multistakeholder composition and culture on wider ICT decision-making processes as one of its major legacies. Many expressed that the IGF provided a space in which multistakeholder discussion could take place before decisions need to be taken in other fora. Participants suggested that it has contributed thereby, for example, to greater clarity of understanding and improved decision-making on a wide range of public policies related to the Internet.

The IGF was felt by participants to have built a community of expertise across stakeholder communities, enabling more effective discourse between those responsible for technical and public policy aspects of the Internet. In doing so, it was said to have developed a culture of inclusion and participation, with a ‘common language’, engaging sections of the community that would not otherwise have been involved in Internet governance discussions. Participation in the IGF, and particularly the emergence of national and regional IGFs (NRIs) was said to have provided a stronger framework for participation by developing countries in Internet governance at both national and international levels, building the capacity and confidence of developing country stakeholders. Also important is the role of the IGF in launching coalitions and spurring international cooperation on specific areas.

However, a number of ongoing challenges were also identified. Aspects of the mandate for the IGF which is set out in the Tunis Agenda, it was suggested, remain unfulfilled or only partially fulfilled. Some participants expressed that some stakeholders are under-represented in the IGF, including demand-side businesses such as those in financial services and manufacturing. While it was noted that the IGF has extended its range of thematic content to include once-controversial issues such as critical Internet resources and human rights, some said that it is not always quick enough to pick up on emerging issues (though there was a comment that it is able to address timely issues in the annual forum), address the anxieties which many people have about the Internet, or engage effectively with those concerned with other public policy issues with which the Internet now intersects. There is a risk, some suggested, of it becoming a forum for Internet insiders rather than reaching out, as it should, to stakeholders that currently do not participate in it.

It was generally recognised that the Internet has changed very substantially since 2006, and that it will change even more substantially between the renewal of its mandate in 2015 and the end of that mandate in 2025. Change during this coming period will be unpredictable, with many developments in Internet governance that are not yet anticipated. Participants considered how to ensure that the IGF could remain fit for purpose in this time of rapid change.

Some suggestions in this context built on existing work to fulfil the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda. Suggested examples of this included continued work on ‘connecting the next billion’, awareness-raising and capacity-building, and the defence of human rights online. Issues such as sustainable development and human rights, it was noted, are not specific to the Internet, but are established public policy areas which are substantially impacted by it. It was felt that this raises issues of intersectionality: more should be done by the IGF to engage with institutions and fora concerned with public policy fields, such as these, with which the Internet now intersects. The IGF has not, it was said by some, been sufficiently effective in reaching out to them to date.

There was agreement that the pace of change that is now taking place in Internet technology and markets requires a growing focus by the IGF on what have been called emerging issues and on issues that will emerge in the next few years.

¶ 24Leave a comment on paragraph 242
It was noted that more could be done to take a strategic, long-term view of the role and activities of the IGF, such as through a predictable multi-year programme of work. Even if not undertaken generally, it might be possible to reinvigorate the IGF by taking a longer-term view of particular issues, dedicating time and resources to progressing discussions and achieving concrete outcomes on these over time. A longer time horizon such as this could help to bring in new collaborators, including international agencies, and new funders.

¶ 25Leave a comment on paragraph 251
Alongside this, it was suggested, it might be possible to move towards a continuous, predictable process for programming the work of the IGF. Working groups of the MAG, for example, could address particular themes year-round. Mechanisms could be put in place to identify and address new or emerging issues, and the annual renewal and selection of MAG Members could be done earlier each year in order to provide a longer annual planning cycle.

It was suggested that the MAG have a more holistic mandate for supporting the preparations of the IGF and focus more on broader policy questions rather than the minutiae of workshops and IGF session selection each year.

It was suggested that the workshop selection process be improved, streamlined, and more transparent. There can be more work done prior to the selection discussion, and the selection processes started much earlier. It was discussed that if the MAG can establish more concrete and concise criteria up front, these can be reflected more clearly in all subsequent steps, e.g., call for workshops, proposal templates, clustering, etc. This will enable an improved Secretariat pre-screening process, including better evaluation of the proposals at the time of submission, suggested actions such as possible merges, and more effective clustering.

Regarding themes, it was suggested that there could be outreach to other organizations, institutions, venues where governments gather, NRIs, to gather input from different communities on issues of interest, not just at the time of workshop proposals, but continuously, and use this to strengthen the IGF as a common platform for these discussions.

It was mentioned by some that the knowledge of the process for selecting workshops by the MAG seems to be lost each year. The selection of workshops and other sessions for IGF annual meetings processes need to be more consistent year by year. It was recommended to ensure continuity between IGF annual meetings., and to avoid the current practice of reinventing the process every year.

There is not a very good understanding across the MAG and the community on the workshop selection process. It was suggested that this opacity be resolved and clearer guidelines, including a timetable of expectations for proposers, be provided. An E-tool for connecting proposed events with similar themes, functioning along the same lines as dating apps, could be used.

A proposal was also made to adopt the so-called “EuroDIG model” in which themes are not predefined and sessions are selected based on ideas expressed at planning meetings by those willing to contribute.

It was suggested that the IGF Secretariat set the timeline for community contributions, and not according to the MAG schedule, in order to structure the process with advance notice and allow sufficient time for each step.

There was general agreement that there needs to be more prioritization of human resources and technology to support the workshop proposal and evaluation process. Many felt that greater efforts are also needed on the communications fronts – for better outreach to the community and better dissemination of IGF documentation and information.

With improvements in place, it is suggested that the IGF can be a true convener for other organizations and processes to utilize, and even a tool to reduce duplication across the Internet governance sphere. Among ideas put forward, one was that National and Regional IGFs be strengthened, and another that perhaps the IGF should only be held every other year to enable more robust relationships and communications with the National and Regional IGFs.

Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair

¶ 38Leave a comment on paragraph 381
It was brought up several times that with the evolution of the IGF there is a need to review the role of the MAG, for example whether it is a program committee or an executive/steering committee for the IGF and/or related intersessional activities. It was suggested that the MAG have a more holistic mandate than merely supporting the preparations of the annual IGF. In its preparation of the event it could focus more on broader policy questions rather than the minutiae of workshop and IGF session selection each year.

¶ 39Leave a comment on paragraph 391
There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.

¶ 40Leave a comment on paragraph 402
A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.

¶ 41Leave a comment on paragraph 410
It was suggested that information on MAG Members’ tenures be published so it is known who are rotating out each year ahead of time. There was also a discussion on whether expertise or experience was a more appropriate criterion, and whether candidates with experience in more than one stakeholder community – or the ability to work across stakeholder communities – would be preferred so as to prevent silos among constituencies, while bearing in mind the need for ensuring regional and other balance and the Secretary-General’s role in this regard.

¶ 42Leave a comment on paragraph 421
It was requested that there be full feedback on how the UN assesses the candidates, and why some are selected and some are not. This information is indeed crucial to allow stakeholder groups to select and put forward the best candidates possible. The possibility of having an apprenticeship programme to develop future MAG candidates was raised.

¶ 43Leave a comment on paragraph 430
Setting up an induction and mentoring process to better integrate new MAG members was also discussed. It was suggested that it would be useful to have an induction or onboarding process for the new MAG members. The suggestion to reconsider the timing was made, in terms of the MAG members possibly being appointed before the new cycle, so they can sit in and understand their roles before taking them on.

One suggestion was for the MAG Chair to have a mandate for more than one year. Another suggestion was to consider aspirational and not prescriptive rotation of the MAG chairmanship among the stakeholder groups, and that the IGF should move away from the default that Chairs are government representatives.

There were suggestions about the selection of the MAG chair, including calls for increased transparency about criteria for the MAG chair and consultation with the stakeholder communities about possible candidates.

There was general agreement on the need for staff resourcing, in line with leveraging the quality and contract support for specific project needs. Technology and technological resources were raised as potential means to also help support the work that the Secretariat does. If these resource gaps could be better communicated to donors more funds could be raised.

There was general agreement that increased outreach was an overall need, including additional community engagement and solicitation of community inputs. Better-quality outreach and documentation of the IGF could also lead to more high-level/political interest in its processes and the annual meeting.

Secondments could be explored as an alternative to enhance the Secretariat, as is done elsewhere in the UN. Some entities could provide financial support. The seconded staff could help to make progress on strategic issues; open communications; and documentation related to the IGF.

It was discussed that the IGF could benefit from the expertise of the community, other organizations in the UN, the NRIs, and others, through MAG working groups and intersessional work to address specific needs.

There was a suggestion to appoint a Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General on Internet governance to act as the “political face” of the IGF. Governments react to seniority levels, and some felt that having this type of appointee to represent the IGF would attract more high-level engagement. It was noted that having such a person attached to the Secretary-General had worked well for the first five years of the IGF (2006-2010), where the function allowed raising the profile of the IGF within and beyond the UN.

A general comment was made that the IGF community, MAG and Secretariat, may not be taking sufficient advantage of its link to and support from the larger UN system and various institutions to provide more information to the UN constituencies .

¶ 57Leave a comment on paragraph 570
It was highlighted that the role of the MAG needs to be clarified in order to pursue significant innovations in the IGF. It was suggested, in this context, that some additional functions relating to the programming of the annual IGF could be undertaken by the Secretariat rather than the MAG. Some participants felt that it would also be beneficial to clarify other aspects of the governance structure of the IGF, including the roles and responsibilities of the UN Secretary-General, of UN DESA under him and of the IGF Chair. Others stressed that the IGF mandate from the Tunis Agenda is clear as are the roles of other actors. All participants were committed to respecting the Tunis Agenda and the direction established in the WSIS + 10 Outcome Document from December 2015.

¶ 58Leave a comment on paragraph 580
In any case, it was noted that any change to the overall set of IGF related activities would place an additional workload on the MAG and on the Secretariat . It was generally felt that the IGF Secretariat is under-resourced and hence lacks capacities for its current responsibilities, let alone additional activities. Clearly, these resourcing challenges need to be addressed if the expectations expressed during the retreat and by the community at large are to be fulfilled.

¶ 59Leave a comment on paragraph 590 III. Ways to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation and increase the engagement of underrepresented segments

¶ 60Leave a comment on paragraph 600-What measures can be taken to engage those stakeholders who are currently unengaged, with a view to expand and diversify physical and virtual participation and foster increased capacity-building opportunities for stakeholders?

¶ 62Leave a comment on paragraph 621-How can the IGF better attract policy-makers and high-level participants from Governments and other stakeholder groups to engage in IGF activities and annual meetings?

¶ 64Leave a comment on paragraph 641
It was emphasized that both physical and virtual participation are important and should be regarded as necessary and complementary types of “engagement”. Several categories of stakeholders to be reached were mentioned, including different sectors – both from industry, government (e.g. parliamentarians, law enforcement agencies, different Ministries, etc.) and civil society groups. Developing countries were also mentioned as a specific category to take into consideration. High-level participants (VIPs) are needed to give visibility while expert participants enhance the quality of discussions. Proper consideration has to be given in finding the right mix of knowledge, commitment, influence, representation and communication. Cross-sector interactions should be encouraged.

¶ 65Leave a comment on paragraph 652
Some felt that participation from stakeholders is not as balanced as it needs to be. In this regard an analysis of who is engaging with the IGF might reveal interesting elements and help prioritise on key missing stakeholders. It was suggested that NRIs could play an important role in this context, although it was noted by some that not all NRIs have the same degree of maturity.

¶ 68Leave a comment on paragraph 680
Many expressed that relevance helps to focus attention and create demand from stakeholders. Some practical suggestions include to make more explicit the “value proposition” or “return on investment” for the different stakeholders. Positive incentives should be highlighted. Some felt that the IGF does not need to cover “all” issues and that discussions could happen when needed. A 2-3 year work plan identifying a roadmap with more concrete outputs at the end might help in bringing in new stakeholders.

¶ 70Leave a comment on paragraph 700
This should still allow for enough flexibility to adapt it to new and emerging situations. Such a process would need to be communicated clearly and widely. A communication strategy needs to be combined with a stakeholder outreach strategy. Predictability in the process is required. Some participants mentioned that a possible lightweight structure could be defined along the SDGs.

¶ 72Leave a comment on paragraph 721
It was said that information about the IGF, its processes and its discussions could be made more accessible and understandable. Some feel that there are currently high-entry barriers for newcomers. Possible improvements include: capacity-building at NRI level; specific workshops/webinars; involvement of Internet governance schools and programmes; enhance the IGF Secretariat’s general communications and outreach capacities; improve the website and make full use of different online tools.

¶ 74Leave a comment on paragraph 740
Many felt that efforts to engage new stakeholders (and keep the ones that are already there) need to be sustained and nurtured. Adequate resources need to be allocated to outreach and engagement efforts. The work done in one year should not disappear in the next one; a plurennial programme of activities could help in this regard. Some felt that while the “spontaneity” of the IGF engagement processes has worked well, time might have arrived for the IGF to address the issue of engagement in a more results-oriented, structured and focused way.

Similarly it was noted that the programme of the annual IGF itself provides technically expert workshops and orientation and newcomer sessions. In line with the “train the trainer” approach, those who have benefitted from these sessions have gone on to take this knowledge back to their countries at the local level (for instance by providing workshops at home, e.g. on IPv6). Travel funding support to attend the annual meeting and MAG meetings is given to some eligible participants from developing countries, funding permitted. In doing so, it was suggested, IGF plays a “knowledge transfer” role and of dissemination of “best practices”. Observatories, summer schools and network review centres that have emerged as a result of being inspired, guided or directly influenced by the IGF, – were cited as good examples of the IGF building capacity. Also it was noted the NRIs provide concrete capacity building opportunities at the regional, country and local level. They were said to organize capacity building efforts for themselves and as IGF-associated entities, attract funding independently.

It was suggested to use the know-how from the BPF, DC and other intersessional activities to produce tools that can be reproduced and used, for instance through building partnerships with governments and with regional groups using the NRIs, and the global IGF.

Some suggested that more capacity development efforts should be addressed at meeting governments’ needs. It was noted that currently there are no IGF-based dedicated capacity development initiatives for governments. Their potential should be explored with proposals adapted to the local environment, to ensure continuity over time and to make needs and ideas are locally conceived.

‘Disruptive’ thinking was suggested to get the IGF out of its comfort zone and to encourage a more a proactive approach to capacity development, which has not been the most visible aspect of the IGF’s activities.

It was said that there are some “academic” gaps in the IGF’s coverage – the IGF’s work could be supplemented with some conceptualization of Internet governance work. It is a new field of study and research. For instance there is not a common inventory of what IG is even within the IGF, and there is a lack of structured curricula for IG, but IGF could support officially the work done by specialized initiatives in order to better develop these skills and competences. A gap in the documentation of the IGF, which could be better structured, was also noted, suggesting that IGF should document all its activities and make this information more accessible.

It was also suggested that relationships and partnerships with other institutions who are involved in capacity building, or in playing information clearing house roles, be emphasized as a means of increasing resources and impacts.

It was pointed out that cross-fertilization often happens inadvertently. However, the current impact and influence at the local level is more incidental. A proposal for having a more structured approach was suggested.

One of the gaps identified was the lack of certain users not coming to the IGF, such as those in health and education, because their fields were not specific enough to Internet governance, as cybersecurity and cyberterrorism are seen to be. It was said that these areas are where there are not enough capacity building activities and where specific action could make IGF more useful to the community and produce a lot of benefit.

Another gap mentioned was the lack of available information on how stakeholders could start a national IGF. It was noted this is not evident for those in developing countries, so there would be a need for more “structural capacity” as part of a larger capacity gap in finding workable solutions at national and local levels.

It was cited as important to keep in view the audience for capacity building efforts and that there should be a variety of topics to offer, ensuring they are relevant for regional and local needs and sustainable in the longer term.

Suggestions included making it clear that IG was a central issue for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The link between Internet governance and development was noted as needing to be made clearer for IGF capacity building efforts to be valued, properly understood and funded. The legitimacy of the IGF – as a UN-supported entity – also needs to be leveraged to these ends, it was said.

Some called for additional incentives for cooperation and leveraging off of what is being done in this field. Also suggesting that the legitimacy gained by IGF be used to obtain support from IGOs and develop partnerships with those interested in capacity development.

It was suggested the IGF eventually try to gather donors and become a specialized centre of expertise in a matchmaking session, for instance on topics such as cybercrime. In doing so, it was said that this could bring a lot more attention to the IGF itself and would be beneficial on both sides.

It was suggested to increase the firm establishment of partnerships with regional organizations, academic institutions and Internet governance “think tanks” . This process would need to be formalized and more structured and incentives for cooperation would need to be provided. Support was expressed for these existing specialized bodies to give visibility in the global IGF programme and creating open educational resources out of the IGF (MOOCS and similar) making them available free to use for individual use and for a fee for commercial re-use.

There was a need expressed for more participation of UN agencies, particularly development agencies (like UNCTAD), and regional commissions (UNESCAP, ESCWA etc.) in the IGF’s meetings and processes, while encouraging partnerships. A similar call was made regarding development banks (not just the World Bank and regional development banks), which were said to have been under-engaged or hardly engaged in the IGF.

One participant suggested that to ensure the sustainability of the funding for annual meetings, the Secretariat should make increased efforts to line up host countries as far in advance as possible, especially in light of the new ten-year mandate.

It was generally agreed that the current funding model should be continued but with renewed and strengthened efforts to increase voluntary contributions. This includes the option to explore ways to accept small contributions beyond the usual bilateral agreements, and recognition of donors wherever possible. The Internet Governance Forum Support Association (IGFSA) was mentioned in this context and it was noted that the UN is currently clarifying whether contributions to the IGFSA could be channelled into the IGF Trust Fund. It was noted that dedicated human resources and capacity could be devoted to stepping up these funding efforts.

Funding and delivery were noted as problematic. Funding was cited as one of the major issues in preventing many individual from participating, as well as for the programme to be more complete and inclusive. On this note, it was noted the necessity of finding other alternatives to increase funding.

Some participants felt that rather than requesting the central UN Secretariat Trust Fund to support other activities such as the NRIs, that “working from the edges” and collaborating with UNDP, which has impressive local-level connections in countries across the world, could be a viable solution for cost-sharing and capacity building at the local levels.

Some participants emphasized that there needs to be a systematic approach with a clear strategy and supporting activities for fundraising. Capturing, documenting and messaging could be the first steps.

It was remarked that it would be an opportune moment at the start of this 10-year mandate of IGF to reach out to potential senior officials including Secretaries-General of international organisations to raise the general profile of the IGF.

¶ 121Leave a comment on paragraph 1211 V. Ways to better capture and shape the outputs of the IGF, including outputs of IGF community intersessional activitivies, and increasing their visibility and impact

The general remark was made that in order to improve the IGF’s outputs, it should be determined first what the purpose or purposes and “target audiences” of these documents are and what types of documents would be most useful to the different user groups and their specific needs.

While narrative reports are good – and it was noted by several participants that these continue to be appreciated by those who cannot attend the IGF in person – papers with clearly stated issues that constitute more of a quick snapshot (or a “cheat sheet”) would be more useful.

Data mining, search tools, multimedia (photos, videos), multilingualism and taxonomy (tagging) are all elements that should be incorporated into the IGF website to enhance the accessibility, readability and attractiveness of the IGF’s documents.

Recommendations 12, 13, 14 of the CSTD working group on IGF improvements were also recalled and cited. In this context it was suggested IGF documents map out converging and diverging issues. There should also be some indication for each output of who the interested stakeholders are. Also in line with the recommendations, a baseline should be applied to make improvements properly, and a survey should be taken of existing documents.

Some suggested that social media and website analytics could also be used to measure how much the documents are used, their viewership, what users are looking for from them. In general user metrics of IGF outputs would be useful.

It was said that documents should be produced not just for existing IGF participants but potential ones. They should be as readable as possible for capacity-building purposes and engaging the unengaged.

It was stressed by some participants that there should be more of an effort made – not just by the IGF Secretariat or the MAG, but by engaged IGF community members and stakeholders wherever possible – to carry IGF outputs into other international and intergovernmental fora.

Given that the resources of the IGF secretariat are limited, it was proposed the IGF work on forming partnerships to address various aspects of improving outputs (e.g. with the Friends of IGF website to adapt some of their archiving and presentation of materials; Diplo/Geneva Internet Platform, which produces briefs on many IGF meetings and events that help people finding their way through the vast amount of sessions and documentation). Similarly, the point was raised by many that better document platforms be used to support the work of NRIs, BPFs and DCs.

In order to translate the outcomes of the discussions into other languages than English and to spread them in all regions of the world, partnerships could be sought e.g. with UN specialized agencies that have translation and outreach resources and/or with private sector actors that may offer software tools e.g. for automated translation or other supporting services.

Applying a rating/review system for sessions was proposed; this could generate inputs for session reports. To address the issue of multilingualism crowd-sourcing could be used for translation of IGF documents, perhaps even engaging the NRIs and the Friends of IGF collaborators.

It was mentioned by many that it would be worthwhile to include photos and other visual elements in at least some of the outputs. A suggestion was also made to include reports that capture success stories, as a specific addition to the IGF’s published material.

It was said that there should be a certain degree of increased formal communication before and after the IGF annual meeting in order to ensure the level of representation/commitment to engage IGOs, the private sector and others at the highest levels.

Other approaches, such as hackathons taking place during the IGF event, could be used to see what interested parties could do with the IGF datasets – such activities have yielded innovative tools and approaches in similar circumstances.

There are many valuable raw materials coming out of the IGF. It was said that UNESCO, for instance, uses the IGF’s outputs for various purposes. Outputs by BPFs and DCs were also described as generally well-written and results-oriented. The IGF’s Chair’s Summary is also a document that has been a consistent and immediate output of every annual IGF. One participant remarked that often issues covered in IGF outputs are ahead of the curve. It should be remembered that a document produced within the IGF context confers a sense of legitimacy.

Participants from the private sector, IFLA and UNESCO would be ready to support any needed improvements to the outputs (concerning multilingualism, taxonomy, document management), in particular where the IGF website is involved.

The session produced a number of ideas about how to improve communication and reporting of the outcomes and the value added of IGF debates. In order for this to be implemented and to have an actual effect, it will be of key importance that responsibilities are clearly defined and that persons and/or organizations are identified that will actually lead the various efforts to further develop communication and the different types of outcome and reporting documents.

¶ 145Leave a comment on paragraph 1450
It was stated that the IGF has evolved over the years and is now seen by many as much more than an annual forum. Increasingly, it is seen not just as an event which takes place once a year, but as an ecosystem including national and regional IGFs, intersessional work, best practice fora, dynamic coalitions and other activities. This ecosystem offers a wider range of ways to engage stakeholders, including under-represented stakeholders, through which its role and impact could grow. It was also said that at the same time, the organizational modalities sometimes do not fully recognize this, resulting in some operational complexities and role confusion in the IGF community, IGF secretariat, MAG, and UNDESA.

The work plans of the IGF intersessional activities should be reviewed and improved accordingly. Improvements or new modalities for any intersessional work should in turn be transparent, following the multistakeholder, open and inclusive process of the IGF.

It was suggested that there could be a clear and close alignment of the NRIs to the global IGF and the Tunis Agenda. At the same time, governments could consider utilizing or leveraging on the work of the NRIs to implement outcomes of the WSIS Action Lines.

Some suggested that the NRIs should stay independent and unique, as they are organic in their creation, while others suggested incorporating the NRIs more tightly into the overall IGF work processes. One concern was raised that NRIs do not have mandates provided for in the Tunis Agenda, and another concern questioned what closer affiliation with the global IGF would mean. Some noted NRIs are diverse, complex, autonomous and bottom-up, and should remain independent from the IGF. There was a general reticence to imposing any strict control over them. At the same time, engagement with NRIs who wish to be more closely involved in the IGF’s work should be strengthened.

It was suggested that the IGF website and NRIs mailing list could be improved to help with information exchange. Other tools such as social media could also be used as collaborative platforms between the IGF and the NRIs.

In addition to increased communication efforts with the NRIs, some suggested that a collaborative and bilateral relationship might be initiated, where the global IGF could reach out to the NRIs more systematically and with established guidelines. Tighter, more specific guidelines could be developed for the establishment of NRIs. This perspective shared that NRIs could be more functionally involved in the IGF work. On this note, it was called for NRIs to further integrate their work into the IGF annual programme, in alignment with its themes.

It was suggested that a stronger connection between the global IGF and the NRIs could also be created through capacity building activities. In this suggestion, one of the work streams of the IGF Secretariat could be in these capacity development efforts and within the MAG, there could be dedicated working groups for this. It was noted the NRIs may also need more financial support.

It was suggested there could be a more systematic and analytical approach toward the engagement of the work of the NRIs. For instance, it would be a useful exercise to evaluate the extent of the multistakeholder process within each of the initiatives.

It was noted that the DCs had agreed to abide to some basic principles, such as open mailing lists, open archives and open membership. In response to a request made at the IGF open consultations in April 2016, they also agreed to include dissenting opinions in their reports. It was suggested that this was a first step in the right direction towards developing a more specific charter with clearly defined objectives and measures of achievement.

The DCs could be better recognized and utilized as a strategic tool for reaching stakeholders who are not currently participating in other IGF processes (e.g. business users such as banks and other unengaged communities).

As there are different peak periods for DCs, their dynamic work programme could be supported dynamically.

Some felt that closer monitoring and evaluation of the DC’s could be done on a needs basis, taking into account their adherence to the guidelines for establishing a DC and the principles as spelled out in DC’s own terms of reference. They could be more actively disbanded when they become inactive (i.e. dynamic versus “static” coalitions).

It was noted that the DCs serve a purpose for people of like-minded views to gather. For them to be integrated into the IGF, and especially, to present as a main session, it was noted that their process needs to comply with the basic principles of the IGF: multistakeholder, inclusive, transparent discussion and reports that reflect the viewpoints of all stakeholders.

It was suggested, albeit without consensus, that the Dynamic Coalitions’ requests to hold individual sessions at the annual IGF meetings be subject to a review process similar to workshop proposals. Currently these are granted automatically provided that the DC has filed an annual activities report.

There is a need to strengthen the work of the Dynamic Coalitions for the purposes of producing consistent outputs. DCs’ work could be periodically reviewed by the MAG and supported by the IGF Secretariat.

It was suggested that some form of liaison could be set up between the BPFs working groups and the MAG. It is also suggested that BPFs work groups could submit their annual work reports for review by the MAG supported by the Secretariat.

Some suggested that BPFs could better reflect the multi-year thematic focus areas of the IGF (should there be one). This could be a more effective way in determining resource implications and end objectives. It was also recommended to continue the practice of having a neutral third party to support the logistics and writing components of the BPF work.

Guidelines for facilitators of BPFs could be developed to ensure consistency and inclusion of all members of the community.

¶ 173Leave a comment on paragraph 1730 VII. Ideas to support, collaborate and enhance communications and cooperation between other Internet Governance related entities and the IGF and leverage the synergies with the IGF.

While it was noted that IGF engagement with many relevant IG related entities and organizations from the Private Sector, Technical Community and Civil Society were considered to be positive, there was agreement that such engagement should be broadened and strengthened.

The IGF could engage more effectively with those organisations that have roles in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. There could be an alignment of implementation timelines through 2025.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) could bring IGF issues to the local authorities including those that are in post-conflict situations. It is important to understand how the Internet can play a critical role in the rebuilding process of countries in post-conflict situations.

It was noted that for some specific subject matters, that the IGF could engage organizations that have clear leads on specific issues (e.g. with the World Trade Organisation on IG related issues in trade)) or robust activities on specific issues (e.g. with IETF, APWG, ISOC, etc.).

It was suggested that a stronger relationship be sought with decision-making processes in the UN General Assembly, notably the First, Second and Third Committees on issues relating to security, development and human rights respectively, including primarily by sharing more information about the IGF (i.e. how to engage throughout the year in IGF processes and sharing output products).

It was noted that some UN regional commissions have good involvement with the IGF and this should continue. Links with institutions such as the Council of Europe, European Commission, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), among many other similar organizations, should continue and be further strengthened.

Relations with Governments and organizations should be a shared responsibility of the UN Secretariat, MAG Chair and Co-Chairs (if appointed), and/or Special advisor to the SG on Internet Governance (if appointed). Special attention should be paid to entities that do not have current representation in the MAG.

There was a suggestion that the MAG could increase its outreach efforts to other relevant IG entities. If a multi-year work programme were developed (i.e. annual or 3-year/5-year programme with specific themes), there could be an opportunity to strengthen and promote the sustainability of relations with other organizations.

It was proposed that better communication packages, capturing and presenting the outcomes of the IGF could be shared with various organizations at opportune occasions, so that representatives can duly inform their stakeholders and communities.

There should be better outreach efforts during the annual IGF meetings. The IGF is an opportunity for participants to get to know one another and to bring back valuable experiences and outputs to their respective organizations.

It was noted that the CSTD mapping chart captured a large number of organizations that are doing work on any number of IG-related issues that could engender some kind of linkage, including intergovernmental and non-governmental, global, regional, etc. Some said that the IGF could utilize this chart in their outreach and communications efforts.

Some participants stated that given both the relevance and possible vulnerability of the IGF, it was noted that its work should be ‘future proof’. Some said that this is not simply a matter of resourcing, but also of ensuring that its institutional structures and capacities are able to respond to changing contexts for Internet and Internet governance.

The IGF’s innovative and unconventional multistakeholder structure and culture, compared with other UN processes, was generally felt to be one of its strengths. However, some said that also made it more difficult to integrate it with other UN processes. And the same is true with respect to integrating the IGF and its institutional arrangements comfortably into expectations of multistakeholder processes. One of the challenges therefore is how to reconcile its bottom-up approach and stakeholder expectations with other multilateral processes within the UN system.

¶ 199Leave a comment on paragraph 1990
It was noted that renewed attention could help in accelerating implementation of the recommendations of the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF which reported in 2012. Some stressed that to do so effectively would require development of an implementation plan for some of the recommendations, with clear targets established for achievement of recommendations, linked where necessary to fundraising or identify support required from existing resources. This implementation plan, it was suggested, should be capable of adapting to changes in the IGF environment, moving out of ‘comfort zones’ which may cease to be relevant as the environment evolves. A similar approach could be appropriate for capacity-building.

¶ 200Leave a comment on paragraph 2000
It was suggested that additional resources would have to be mobilized in order to allow the IGF to further deliver on its mandate. In particular, many felt that resourcing for the secretariat would need to be enhanced if it were to undertake additional responsibilities to analyse current or emerging issues, reach out to underrepresented stakeholders and international entities and un-engaged countries that are concerned with related policy areas, and develop future thinking. It was noted that UNDESA is in the process of strengthening its support to the IGF, and many participants suggested additional possibilities for increasing support from the community.

¶ 201Leave a comment on paragraph 2010
The ideas and suggestions from the retreat were felt to have been valuable, in beginning to frame what could be done to address many challenges, including through augmenting available resources and capacities, better planning for and preparing meetings, adapting institutional frameworks and rallying various stakeholders. The scope and scale of the challenges identified should not be underestimated, and some participants felt that the retreat could have identified even bolder actions. At the same time, participants felt that there was much that could be done through collective efforts, and that significant advancements could be achieved relatively quickly.

Comments

RFC5992
I have reviewed the summary web page from the perspective of a participant in the retreat. It appears to me to be a good summary.

There is one topic that was mentioned during the retreat which I would like to emphasize future.

It is clear to almost everyone that the Internet and activities that it enables have had a huge impact on many activities of contemporary life around the world. The IGF and associated activities have provided a discussion forum about many of those activities. At the same time, thjere is no evidence for many of them activities requiring “governance” at all. Others, despite the cross-border aspect of the Internet, can and should be dealt with as national matters. Still others are Internet-induced variations on issues that are associated with existing institutions for discussion and problem-solving or existing international agreements.

I see the IGF as being far more effective and useful during the next decade if it can be focused tightly on actual Internet Governance issues, topics where the Internet needs governance, where individual national solutions are inherently inadequate, and where other applicable institutions do not exist. For the latter topics, I’m especially concerned that, if IGF continues to be actively involved, discussions will be carried out in ignorance of other work and, more important, will discourage progress in context in which real experience and knowledge are readily available.

Recommendations (not just for IGF 2016 but as a gradual process going forward:

(1) Focus IGF on actual governance issues that are Internet-specific. Other topics should at least be identified as different and probably be candidates for spinning off into other venues.

(2) In areas where other efforts, institutions, or policy frameworks already exist and predate the Internet, begin looking at how IGF, or IGF-associated mechanisms or entities, can do a better job of educating those involved in those efforts about issues created or changed by the Internet. In most cases, those earlier forums should be the focus of discussion and decision-making and the impact of the Internet should not be an excuse for non-action, but discussions that do not consider Internet impact (and consider it with a good understanding of actual Internet reality, technical and administrative) are unlikely to add good results.

Thanks to the UN staff and others involved for facilitating, and to the other participants for, a retreat that I found very useful and constructive and producing an excellent summary page.

I wholeheartedly support Mr. Klensin’s comment regarding the need to keep the IGF focused on “actual governance issues that are Internet-specific.” Mandate creep has long been a threat to the IGF, and by openly committing to this principle would help to keep it on track, and thus to demonstrate its purpose and usefulness.

The final participants list though very balanced and diverse across a number of considerations are the same people we have been seeing at the IGF since its inception. Given the revolutionary changes the internet is facing itself and bringing to society it would have been worthwhile to include faces that bring new thought processes and perspectives to the IGF. Reaching out to them is important and critical for the development of internet.

Although some of the participants where NRI coordinators; I find there was not sufficient attention given to include this group. Each national and regional IG initiative is per se contributing to strengthen the global IGF, furthermore NRI coordinators have a profound knowledge how to build up IG debates in all parts of the world. Listening to them would be valuable in both terms, (a) how to improve the IGF planning process and (b) understanding regional differences and specifics.

Internet impact on the evolution is taking place mostly in developing countries where penetration is set to increase in the coming years. It is generally felt that IGF contribution in creating multi stakeholder participation from developing countries is very small and need to be increased to provide opportunity for people working for the development and growth of the internet in developing countries shape policies with multi stakeholder approaches.

absolutely, I support your view an increase participation from developing countries will help to shape policies. This approach will help participants from the developing countries to bring to table factors of internet governance that directly affects them.

Decision making on a wide range of public policies related to the Internet in developing countries is still being conducted in isolation. A recent example was the passing of Cybercrime bill in Pakistan.

For developing countries like Zimbabwe, yes there are trying to embrace these multistakeholder processes but the question that normally arises is who leads them. As much as there seems to be an all encompassing composition, once the idea is “coined” by the state, the multistakeholder composition falls away. The state will usually employ their own stakeholders that stand in as academics or technocracts and it distorts the whole system.
How then do we ensure governments do not have the upper hand in the process?

The community of experts on both technical and public policy issues on the internet is extremely limited. Instead of giving exposure to the same group of people again and again new members from civil society, government and academia must be included in international and regional IGFs.

The representation of stakeholders at the IGF is thoroughly dissatisfying although often praised by insiders as being a useful discussion forum where public and private stakeholders can broaden their knowledge of Internet policy issues and their appreciation of other points of view, the tangible results of this knowledge exchange have been thin on the ground and back in the countries of origin.

IGF risks of becoming a forum that is only for founders or workers of new world order social organizations coming from urban professional elitist’s backgrounds. The weak links back in home countries and lack of sharing of knowledge gained from the IGF is resulting in shaping internet policy issues by their own perceptions of needs and problems instead from a community or a national/regional perspective. If the IGF aims are to become more than urban based elitist group speaking or working on behalf of members or beneficiaries than a more internally democratic and participatory approach is called for which involves consciously breaking with the approaches, attitudes and behaviors associated with Soviet top-down styles of identifying stakeholders.

The IGF has certainly expanded its audience since the first three or four meetings when the focus really was on a narrow set of Internet governance issues and the attendees (and IGF members) were primarily “Internet insiders.” Today, IGF examines a broader set of issues and spends more time on the communities impacted by Internet governance decisions rather than rehashing how those decisions are made (in other forums).

i will give an example of the recently established IGF in Zimbabwe, multistakeholders are there in theory, stakeholders are not equally represented and sice its formation nothing else has been done to capacitate the citizens on internet governance issues. When it comes to policing issues the ZIGF is silent yet its supposed to be a voice of the voiceless. As we reviewed the Computer cyber crime bill, the multistakeholder unison disappeared, the civil society had its own view and now trying to engage the policy makers to accept their views before the bill becomes a law. Is it supposed to be that way or all stakeholders should reach a consensus even at the policy drafting stage?

This may be the most important paragraph of the entire report. Because the MAG members come from a wide range of backgrounds and because the proposal evaluation process rewards those proposals that are on topics that most or all of the MAG members are familiar with, it is very hard for proposals on brand new, emerging issues to make it onto the program. IGF should strive to carve a niche for itself as a place where participants can learn how to anticipate new challenges in Internet policy and governance. This may require some changes to the proposal solicitation and selection processes.

Connecting the next billion seems to be a corporate agenda of global corporations which will benefit greatly in the form of financial gains, more surveillance and flow of information. At the IGF we should firstly focus on protecting the rights of users on important issues such as freedom of expression, speech and protection of 5eyes of surveillance. Strategic relationship and data transfers between the NSA and powerful global internet entities should be discussed before connecting the next billion and putting them under their surveillance.

The secretariat should leverage its location in Geneva to maintain and further develop close relations with the other UN agencies there or nearby e.g. the Commission for Science and Technology for Development, the International
Telecommunications Union, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Command, UNESCO, WIPO and the WTO.

The IGF secretariat, or the MAG, can map ongoing policy spaces and the create a mechanism for information sharing with these spaces to ensure interaction between content and outcomes of discussions at the IGF, and other policy-making spaces.

Other institutions and mechanisms can be encouraged to convene meetings or consultations at the IGF and BPFs can be used to contribute to the work being done at other fora, for example, UN Women or Special Rapporteurs to the Human Rights Council).

The IGF/MAG’s ability to focus early IGFs on themes established by the WSIS helped to focus discussion and provide continuity. Eventually however, over-reliance on those themes led to repetitive discussions and reliance on an insiders’ group of speakers. This is a good suggestion, but there needs to be continual renewal of the themes, including (as suggested later in this report) by harvesting topics that prove either fruitful or contentious in regional and national IGFs, and using mechanisms that are working well in EURODIG, for example.

Perhaps a working group of the MAG could be responsible for workshop selection. If there processes for transparency set up, the selection process could be more manageable among a smaller, focused group.

One of the most important innovations that could be made to the selection process would be providing a platform (maybe on LinkedIn) where potential session organizers could indicate that they are thinking of submitting a proposal on a particular topic and solicit potential panelists. Having served on the MAG, I have found it very frustrating to see four very similar proposals each of which were incomplete or less diverse than they would have been if the organizers had worked together on one or two strong proposals. This would work much better than requiring “arranged marriages” of similar proposals after the MAG selection is done.

There is clearly a tension between “setting a theme” and allowing the IGF community to propose panels on the topics that are most timely and important. In the past, the conference themes and the subthemes have been broad enough to accommodate a very wide range of discussions. I would hate to see the IGF theme being used to block the kind of discussions we have had at past IGF meetings.

Fully support to avoid reinventing the process every year. I can speak from the EuroDIG perspective only: A clear process description (in words and in info graphic) which is more or less the same every year and published on the website will help the community to navigate. This process can be adjusted and improved where needed year by year, but the core should remain the same. Having such a stabile (not inflexible) process will also allow easier on boarding of new MAG members.

I think there are not many examples to look at, if any at all. The selection process for a multistakeholder organisation (conference) must be different from any other conferences, where a programme committee is in charge of. The aim of the IGF should be to decrease the number of session drastically. Too many sessions are overlapping and reiterating. This leads to a rather fragmented approach instead of a multistakeholder discussion, because everyone is so busy with preparing its own sessions. Some speakers are heading from one session to another just giving their (repeatedly) statements, and not being able to contribute to one session in full. Too many of the same people (still too many MAG members) are involved in multiple sessions this gives a bad taste.

It is frustrating for anyone (newcomer or experienced contributor) to be rejected. Although there are guidelines in place and templates for submissions provided acceptance or rejection is based somehow on a subjective POV and always questionable. Therefore we developed a process at EuroDIG (see comment paragraph 33), which is open to anyone willing to contribute. We don’t want so say “no” to anyone, who put an effort in getting involved; instead we would like to offer ways of including as many contributors as possible. Our aim is to mix communities and try to facilitate real multistakeholder debates.

We need to be VERY careful not to impose a rigid, quantitative ranking system in which each proposal is given a score and that alone determines whether it ends up on the program. If there are five, nearly-identical panels that all get high, nearly-identical scores, it would not make sense to accept them all–and exclude new topics and new participants that might now have scored as well. The MAG must have the ability to “promote” proposals that may not have scored as well as redundant panels on well-worn topics.

For clarification: The EuroDIG call for issues does pre-define „categories“.
We are asking for issues of high interest to many stakeholders across Europe. In order to structure the proposals more easily, we are suggesting a few categories that can attribute to submissions. If a suggestion does not fit into one of the categories, a new one can be proposed.
The difference to the IGF is that we are not declining or accepting session proposals, but aim to build a programme including almost all submissions. Therefore we connect submitters which proposed a similar topic and encourage them to organise a session together. This is not always easy and needs a lot of facilitation and coordination work from the secretariat, as well as collaboration tools (wiki) and briefings. The process has become more stabile and clearer over the years and with the inclusion of subject matter experts we now avoid merging topics which do not really belong together.

We should notice how many nations and regions have been inspired by the formation of the IGF back ten years ago and how fast this concept of open multistakeholder discussion has spread over the world. Many NRI’s have aligned their processes in order submit their results to the annual global IGF. However the process to integrate national and regional outcomes into the global forum could be improved. There are multiple opportunities, like regional open forums, one joint NRI session, inter regional meetings, best practise exchanges.

It would help structuring the programme if we introduce a geographical component and provide space for all (5) regions equally to present their outcomes. Both should be possible; the opportunity for stakeholders of the respective region to meet and discuss whatever is on top of the agenda (in reach) and to present regional hot topics to all participants of the IGF (outreach).
I see the following benefits of such an approach:

IGF participants could be informed mutually about the issues relevant for each region.
Informed participants would have a better understanding for regional differentiated arguments during each of the following IGF sessions. (I.e. why are participants from region abc arguing in this direction whilst region xyz has another focus?) This would support the multistakeholder discussion and the understanding for each other.
Such an effort would require enhanced communication (or coordination) among national and regional initiatives from the same region, which is a multistakeholder process in itself.
It offers an additional opportunity for stakeholder from one region to meet.

In this year’s programme we see some regions / nations got a slot in the programme, whilst others have been rejected. What was the rationale behind such decision? It gives the impression the selection process was arbitrary.

We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.

In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:

1. In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1]open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair

¶ 39There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.

¶ 40A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.

2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.

“Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2] “

3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item. Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)

After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.

The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.

We recommend that in the interests of transparency,names and application details of allcandidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.

These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.

We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.

In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:

1. In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1]open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair

¶ 39There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.

¶ 40A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.

2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.

“Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2] “

3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item. Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)

After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.

The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.

We recommend that in the interests of transparency,names and application details of allcandidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.

These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.

We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on the IGF retreat retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.

In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we take this opportunity to bring attention to the prior steps related to MAG nominations:

1. In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The result of this meeting, is a public document[1]open to public consultation until 31October 2016. With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair

¶ 39There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.

¶ 40A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for.

2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.

“Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite nuanced point.Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process. The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2] “

3. The recording of this session was made public[3]. Even though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item. Specifically he pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next MAG renewal. Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 52.06)

After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to the public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we take this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.

The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.

We recommend that in the interests of transparency,names and application details of allcandidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. This requirement should also be
included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.

These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other
organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.

As a general rule, it would be unwise to impose criteria on the stakeholder groups, in my opinion. Each group has different ways of working and different priorities. That said, transparency and awareness would be greatly improved if the UN Secretary-General were to be clear on her/his requirements for geographic, gender, age and other elements of diversity. Knowing these in advance would make the stakeholders’ work easier and more effective.

I would be interested in knowing how an “apprenticeship programme” would work. I think the NRIs and the inter-sessional work already provide valuable ways for people to get involved in the IGF community and to demonstrate the kinds of skills that might be helpful on the MAG. Despite that, in the past, some new MAG members are often chosen who have not been deeply engaged in past IGF activities. This is particularly true of representatives of IGOs.

This is essential. It is hard to recruit and retain a great team of staff, if the funding and leadership of the IGF is not stable. We have been very lucky so far to have a dedicated and talented group of people supporting the IGF. But the kind of delay caused by the one-year delay in renewing the IGF mandate was VERY troubling.

This seems overly bureaucratic and would inhibit the day-to-day functioning of the IGF Secretariat. The chair should be someone who know how to work with the full range of stakeholders involved in the IGF. There is no way that two or three or four people can represent all the different interests of the IGF community–that’s what the members of the MAG do.

We propose coningsider having co-chairs to work with the MAG chairperson to a) assist with the workload and b) ensure that voices from all regions of the world and different perspectives and stakeholder groups are reflected in MAG coordination. For example, the SG appointed Chair can be complemented by stakeholder group identified co-chairs and together than can form a small chairing group that shares the load and supports the secretariat as needed.

My comments refer to the mention of a Special Advisor to the Secretary-General in para 55. The report refers to him as “the political face” of the IGF and notes “that having such a person attached to the Secretary-General had worked well for the first five years of the IGF (2006-2010), where the function allowed raising the profile of the IGF within and beyond the UN”. This is correct, but not the whole story. For the first five years Mr Nitin Desai assumed the function of Special Advisor to the Secretary-General. His role however was much more than just being the “political face”, as he chaired all the open consultations and MAG meetings and also gave advice to the Secretary-General on other Internet governance related issues, such as “enhanced cooperation”. The role of a Special Advisor should therefore also be discussed in connection with the MAG Chair (paras 44-48) as well as in connection with other Internet governance related issues that require high-level attention

The Internet in 2016 has grown in economic and social importance since Mr Desai’s mandate elapsed six years ago. Re-appointing a Special Advisor on Internet governance would therefore be a logical return to normality. The seniority of a Special Advisor in the UN hierarchy would benefit the IGF. An alternative solution could consist of appointing a separate MAG Chair who would report directly to the Special Advisor, should the latter not be in a position to devote that much time to chairing the MAG.

For Governments: Through the UN itself and through regional groups. In Latin America there are several related regional political/economical groups integrated by government representatives. i.e. CELAC The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, MERCOSUR, Andean COmmunity, etc.

Governments are already engaged inside this groups and several initiatives with an strong leadership from regional leaders. So if we put IGF in their political/social/economical agenda, can be succesfull engaging governments with those issues.

Most of the times, even if you are right. have the right approach and resons, still need political support.

We see 2 ways here:

1. Work to get political support

2. Work to not need political support when goverments are against some technical or expert positions for political considerations. What this mean is to allow a direct access from experts as an stakeholder and making clear the line between a technical issue (a fact) and a political issue (a conditioning)

2. A mix with volunteers and staff for NRIs. Most of volunteers have not enough time to attend meetings, work on minutes, organize events, travel, etc., so in some way the results depend on the time they can donate for free to NRIs. So it’s necessary to have hired people to work in the day to day. Of course it mean again reliable source funding.

Predictability and advance knowledge of host countries will increase participation and enable advance planning of the many pre-, side- and linked events people convene around the IGF. We recommend that host countries are secured and made known three to four years in advance.

We should work on metrics about WHY people is not intereested or engaged with IGF. Some possible answer has to do with:

1. Lack of english. This is a main problem. We must work on an effective, reliable, always available and free translation system. This is a very high-entry barrier for newcomers and for the whole community in general.

2. Lack of practical expertise because most volunteers have only theorical access to discussions. Not enough geographical fellows and other ways to participate is the normal condition.

3. Lack of Local work on IGF and related issues including content, on other languages than english.

There are many examples individuals who have benefited from the capacity-building impact of the IGF to date, and more specifically from the capacity-building programs offered by some of the stakeholder groups. This can be seen in their emergence as active participants and often leaders in their communities’ organizations and at the national and international level. It would be useful to gather a report (self generated?) to show others this positive impact, ideally as a means of encouraging more capacity building efforts connected with the IGF.

IGF should focus on arranging capacity building programmes in collaboration with friends and partners of the internet to develop capacity around important public policy issues surrounding the internet. Setting up summer schools would be a great idea to bring in experts from the west to the global south.

Capacity Building programs in other languages than english. Not only translation is needed but customize the programs and contents. This is a must for regions like Latinoamerica where we have initiatives but always in the same level (beginners) and the world is running fast.

Segregating government participants would work against the multistakeholder basis of the IGF. Instead, government participants should be encouraged to take advantage of broadly based capacity building efforts by any stakeholder. Governments themselves should take advantage of the IGF and related activities as a tool both for internal capacity building and in succession planning for their employees, but also for their citizens.

IGF for Academic is also a must. An structured, common and regional effort to make IGF in the academic curriculo of universities. For this we need governments participation in order to make IGF academic issues, a recognized, international and standarized content in the universitary level.

The IGF could do much more to connect people with similar interests while they are at IGF meetings. Encouraging everyone to use the Web site to indicate their interest in specific sessions would be one way of helping people meet people they should know.

Funding should be particularly oriented to contribute to identify and support the participation of new and under-represented stakeholders. A voluntary donation made as part of the registration process should be considered, accompanied by measures to ensure transparency.

We should have an IGF secretariat at every country, with a dedicated and permanent, full time staff.

Sustained funding has to be independent, from non invasive sources. UN and related international initiatives (like latinamerican and caribean ones) are a good starting point if they can work on and non political base with local IGF and NRIs.

It is a good idea to charge the nominal amount from the participants or the associates who have an interest in sponsoring the event. This way the funding issue can be address and above all the surplus amount can be utilized to improve the event. The part of it can be spared for bringing awareness about IGF in the Internet users and the academic institutions like colleges and universities. There can be an option of online subscription by making online payment using credit card from those users like me who are interested to get subscribed and remain updated by paying nominal fee of subscription.

In order to increase visibility of the outputs of the IGF, I think it is important to use social media at a very serious level. The better combination of tools for this would be a much better, graphic-rich, more colourful website to keep users who engage with the web regularly(i.e younger people), interested in the content of the IGF. It is important to know that the website needs to reveal to the user that what the IGF is doing something good for the world and relevant in the lives of anyone who may visit the website. The website can then add on this by having a way to give back to the user, e.g the IGF can run a ‘marketing campaign’ with an associated tagline that can be spread with the help of of the users who engage with the activities of IGF. For example , a short campaign to spread the word through Twitter, those who tweet out the tagline get a special award or some form of recognition by the IGF by helping to ‘connect the next billion’ because it a worthy cause, or get to invite a few users who spread IGF’s message best to engage with the previously disconnected people on the other side of the world who now have internet access after work that was done through partnerships with the IGF. For a person already in the connected world to hear and get a perspective from someone who got online for the first time and how it changed their life can be a great experience (in my view at least). Finally, YouTube is a great way to let the world know that the IGF is doing is important. It can be beneficial before big important meetings to run/upload pre-meeting ‘teaser videos’ so that these can at least generate interest from the public. This can get more people to go to the IGF and investigate what the issues are that were told in the teaser video. Just some thoughts, thank you.

Outputs should not be equated with “documents.” The outputs of skill and participation in Internet-related governance activities by all stakeholder groups may well be the most effective and demonstrable.

These are all valuable suggestions. It would be particularly useful to have the best and most interesting panels (and 3- to 7-minutes snippets of panels) highlighted on the IGF web site. The TED.com site may be a model. They do a great job of showcasing the most popular and most though-provoking videos. And they have a mailing list and send out an e-mail every week or so pointing their audience to particularly cool talks.

Having an annual report focused on the outcomes of the IGF yearly could help to show its relevance more clearly, including for fundraising purposes. Outcomes emerge (and have emerged) in multiple ways and it is necessary to capture and communicate them. It will reaffirm the value of the IGF as an open space for IG debate. Workshop and main session organisers could be asked to identify the outcomes of the sessions. In addition, the IGF Secretariat could develop a survey for the internet community to indicate what they view as being the three main outcomes of the IGF each year.

Independent NRIs is a must, but working very closed and with international practices. Independent means:

Own administration
Own agenda
Own process
Same or localized model, toolkits, reports, and methodology in order to be able to sistematize information and offer quality reports and materiales for the entire, global IGF process

We agree with the need for NRIs to remain autonomous and independent. However we see some opportunities for stronger linkages between NRIs and the global IGF, while maintaining their independence. For example, the MAG should encourage NRIs to contribute to the open consultations – or consult with them proactively – so that the priorities identified are taken into account when the annual global programme is developed, but, this should not be forced. The most logical and useful links would be through intersessional work. Organisers of BPFs, for example, or dynamic coalitions, should reach out to NRIs and vice versa. The secretariat and MAG can facilitate this. Fostering dialogue between the regions can be encouraged through the IGF.

Not just by the MAG. DCs’ work needs to be reviewed by the IGF community at large, and that process of review needs to be supported by the Secretariat and funded. This was piloted (without funding) during the 2015 IGF when DC outputs were left open for community review, which could lead to outputs with a strong and broad consensus being validated as outputs of the IGF at large.

We observe that stakeholders and views from the global South are underrepresented. To improve it, we suggest the following:
•The MAG should initiate discussions with underrepresented governments very early on in the preparation for the preparatory process for the annual IGF.
• Stakeholders from developing countries should be encouraged to be facilitators of sessions and the IGF Secretariat should facilitate identifying funds in order to secure support for their participation.

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the retreat proceedings through this online platform, and appreciate the flexibility regarding the deadline. We would like to see the discussion of this document and consideration of next steps continue and expanded with the IGF community in Guadalajara.

There is a clear need to engage more representatives of governments and of private companies, ideally at a higher level. One reason fewer private sector representatives are coming to the IGF is because they have fewer of their counterparts to talk with (and fewer senior government officials to interact with). This could lead to a downward spiral. The result would be that the only corporate and government people coming to IGF are people who are there to “prevent something bad from happening” rather than being there to contribute to fruitful and constructive discussions.

Activity

Recent Comments on this Page

It is a good idea to charge the nominal amount from the participants or the associates who have an interest in sponsoring the event. This way the funding issue can be address and above all the surplus amount can be utilized to improve the event. The part of it can be spared for bringing awareness about IGF in the Internet users and the academic institutions like colleges and universities. There can be an option of online subscription by making online payment using credit card from those users like me who are interested to get subscribed and remain updated by paying nominal fee of subscription.

i will give an example of the recently established IGF in Zimbabwe, multistakeholders are there in theory, stakeholders are not equally represented and sice its formation nothing else has been done to capacitate the citizens on internet governance issues. When it comes to policing issues the ZIGF is silent yet its supposed to be a voice of the voiceless. As we reviewed the Computer cyber crime bill, the multistakeholder unison disappeared, the civil society had its own view and now trying to engage the policy makers to accept their views before the bill becomes a law. Is it supposed to be that way or all stakeholders should reach a consensus even at the policy drafting stage?

For developing countries like Zimbabwe, yes there are trying to embrace these multistakeholder processes but the question that normally arises is who leads them. As much as there seems to be an all encompassing composition, once the idea is “coined” by the state, the multistakeholder composition falls away. The state will usually employ their own stakeholders that stand in as academics or technocracts and it distorts the whole system.
How then do we ensure governments do not have the upper hand in the process?

absolutely, I support your view an increase participation from developing countries will help to shape policies. This approach will help participants from the developing countries to bring to table factors of internet governance that directly affects them.

There is a clear need to engage more representatives of governments and of private companies, ideally at a higher level. One reason fewer private sector representatives are coming to the IGF is because they have fewer of their counterparts to talk with (and fewer senior government officials to interact with). This could lead to a downward spiral. The result would be that the only corporate and government people coming to IGF are people who are there to “prevent something bad from happening” rather than being there to contribute to fruitful and constructive discussions.

These are all valuable suggestions. It would be particularly useful to have the best and most interesting panels (and 3- to 7-minutes snippets of panels) highlighted on the IGF web site. The TED.com site may be a model. They do a great job of showcasing the most popular and most though-provoking videos. And they have a mailing list and send out an e-mail every week or so pointing their audience to particularly cool talks.

The IGF could do much more to connect people with similar interests while they are at IGF meetings. Encouraging everyone to use the Web site to indicate their interest in specific sessions would be one way of helping people meet people they should know.

Recent Comments in this Document

It is a good idea to charge the nominal amount from the participants or the associates who have an interest in sponsoring the event. This way the funding issue can be address and above all the surplus amount can be utilized to improve the event. The part of it can be spared for bringing awareness about IGF in the Internet users and the academic institutions like colleges and universities. There can be an option of online subscription by making online payment using credit card from those users like me who are interested to get subscribed and remain updated by paying nominal fee of subscription.

I would think it appropriate to include here a more specific item on involvement of private sector, under the larger banner of responsible intermediaries/entities, that was mentioned in the framing section. Otherwise the recommendations oscillate predominantly between policy and technical communities.

Interesting idea and would like to read more, perhaps in the form of a specific best practice. Especially as it presents a tension with the assumed heterogeneity of multistakeholderism. While subject focus is important, it must also be balanced with the benefits of diverse views and experiences that influence outcomes.

I think Adam’s comment is well received. However, I’m not sure that it fits into the text here as it is rather specific. There are some more best practices that could be listed here, such as code audits or FLOSS development. Suffice to mention the importance of responsible intermediaries to put in place processes and mechanisms to facilitate coordination with and among those from all stakeholder groups with the knowledge and skill sets necessary to improve cybersecurity.

IXP business models vary depending on whether an IXP is for-profit or not-for-profit. In general, a for-profit IXP aims to be profitable and distributes this profit as a dividend, or equivalent payment, while not-for-profit IXPs exchange traffic without the intention of distributing profit, but with the intent to invest any surplus in the future development of the IXP.